libertarian candidates

[shanek]

You're reading things into the Constitution that just aren't there;

No, I'm not.

making an oath doesn't give you total liberty to execute the oath,

It does if you have executive power. That's what "executive" means.

The Constitution explicitly gives the authority to interpret the constitution to the Supreme Court, not the president: Article 3 Section. 2. Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

Now you're the one reading in things that aren't there. That only refers to trying cases in a court of law. It DOES NOT APPLY TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Executive orders may be invalidated by the judicial branch, but that doesn't speak to the point at all.

What it means is that he has to execute the laws that Congress passes,

AND he can refuse to execute those laws if necessary to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

The President doesn't have to enforce unconstitutional lawsm but he does not have the authority to determine whether a law is unconstitutional, that power is explicitly reserved to the courts.

No, it is not. YOU ARE WRONG. ONLY in cases of law that come to court. Separation of powers.

Badnarik wants to refuse to implement laws that Congress passes in direct violation of the Constitution

This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and repeating it doesn't make you right.

What the f*ck do you think the point of that oath is in the first place???

As for Section 4 it's what is commonly called a rubber paragraph, it states that Congress can Impeach for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." With no definition of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanour it basically means whatever Congress wants it to mean, with the possible exceptions of gay-walking and shoplifting.

That's bull$#!7, too. "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a very specific meaning in Common Law, and only referred to the most egregious of offenses. The impeachment clause is there as a defensive measure, to get a dangerous person out of office before he destroys the country. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #65, "Impeachable offenses relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.'"

It certainly includes refusing to implement laws that Congress passes.

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN 100% WRONG BY ANY READING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

<<Reagan's comment was an off-the-cuff joke not intended to be broadcast. Badnarik's comment is an article that was posted to his web site, intended for broadcast. (Until he was nominated, that is.


So??? Reagan's comment was intended for a smaller, more select audience. Ditto Badnarik's comments, intended for a smaller, more select audience -- those who understand the difference between humor, hyperbole and serious, lilteral statements. Obviously, not intended for humorless people like you.


-- Rouser

 

[shanek]

Shanek, with all due respect, the positions espoused by you and Badnarik don't pass the giggle test.

Then answer the f*cking questions...if you can.

 

[shanek]

Everyone reading the board, except for you, knows that the supreme court determines constitutionality of laws.

Only in cases brought before it. And you'll notice that the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law unless the constitutionality of the law is specifically questioned before it.

ALL THREE BRANCHES can determine if a law is unconstitutional. If Congress determines it to be unconstitutional, they don't pass the law, or they repeal it if it already exists. The President, HAVING EXECUTIVE POWER, can choose not to enforce unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court can overturn laws that it deems unconstitutional. This is part of the checks and balances of our system. IF ANY ONE BRANCH DETERMINES THAT A LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. By design.

I have QUOTED the Constitution. I have QUOTED the founders. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING, NADA, ZIP. You won't even answer basic, direct questions. You're useless and pathetic.

 

[varwoche]

Then answer the f*cking questions...if you can.

I'm trying, however laughter-induced convusions are making it hard to type.

 

[shanek]

From Federalist #73, by Alexander Hamilton:

It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.

And on the role of the courts, from Federalist #80:

It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judicary authority of the Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: 1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation; 2d, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union; 3d, to all those in which the United States are a party; 4th, to all those which involve the PEACE of the CONFEDERACY, whether they relate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, or to that between the States themselves; 5th, to all those which originate on the high seas, and are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction; and, lastly, to all those in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased.

 

[shanek]

I'm trying, however laughter-induced convusions are making it hard to type.

You've somehow managed to type a whole page of stuff in the interim. Now shut up, stop weaseling, and ANSWER THE F*CKING QUESTIONS!!!

 

[varwoche]

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN 100% WRONG BY ANY READING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Kerberos is in good company.

Seeing as even shanek has conceded that these nutty views would unlikely be supported by the president, vice president, any living former pres or vp, any current or former cabinet member, any senator, 99% of the house, and the supreme court.

In other words, we're not talking plain vanilla fringe here folks.

 

[varwoche]

You've somehow managed to type a whole page of stuff in the interim. Now shut up, stop weaseling, and ANSWER THE F*CKING QUESTIONS!!!

When he paints himself into a fanatical corner, I notice that shanek becomes bellicose.

 

[shanek]

Varwoche, answer these questions:

• Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"?
• How would a President doing so "violate" the law?
• Why is the President required to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititon"?
• What does the Constitution mean by "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
• How would Badnarik's refusal to use the powers of the Presidency to execute unconstitutional laws constitute "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under their Common Law meaning in effect at the time of the Constitution's ratification?
• Why is Badnarik bad and instigating a coverup because his campaign team is revamping his entire site after getting the nomination, but Kerry is apparently okay for covering up and removing a statement on his site where he would make national service MANDATORY for young adults the DAY AFTER the press getting wind of it?

 

[Kerberos]

When he paints himself into a fanatical corner, I notice that shanek becomes bellicose.

NONONONONO, shanek is never rude "as long as people don't deliberately lie or misrepresent what he's saying or resort to ad hominem attacks or anything like that. Look over his body of posts objectively, and you'll see this is 100% true." So obviously it all our fault.

Edited to add: Have you also noticed how he insert caps in the place of arguments?

 

[shanek]

Missed this the first time around:

It also includes trying to force Congress to attend his course, unless there is some law that gives him such power which I doubt there is.

Article II Section 3: "[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."

 

[varwoche]

Varwoche, answer these questions:

No thank you. I've said all I have to say to you for the time being.

A couple of the points you raise may be worthy of serious discussion. However, in a thread about Badnarik, serious discussion is a derail.

You are invited to keep abreast of my ongoing Badnarik reporting and analysis. No doubt future opportunities for discourse will occur.

 

[Kerberos]

Missed this the first time around:



Article II Section 3: "[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."

I stand corrected, it does seem he has the power to do it.

 

[Kerberos]

It does if you have executive power. That's what "executive" means.

No executive means that he can execute laws, not that he can repeal them.

Now you're the one reading in things that aren't there. That only refers to trying cases in a court of law. It DOES NOT APPLY TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Executive orders may be invalidated by the judicial branch, but that doesn't speak to the point at all.

It refers to "all cases... arising under this Constitution" seems pretty clear. Especially since the constitution tells that he must faithfully execute all laws.

No, it is not. YOU ARE WRONG. ONLY in cases of law that come to court. Separation of powers.

Do you really think using caps magically makes you right? The decision of whether a law is unconstitutional fall under the judicial branch, as you say. "separation of powers".

This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and repeating it doesn't make you right.

If you don't think repetition makes a point more valid, how come you repeat wrong three times with capital letters. Christ this is like arguing with a six year old!

What the f*ck do you think the point of that oath is in the first place???

It’s an oath not to violate the Constitution that would for example mean that he can’t act without basis in some law since that would undermine the legislative power or something like that. It’s basically just a confirmation that he will follow the Constitution.

That's bull$#!7, too. "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a very specific meaning in Common Law, and only referred to the most egregious of offenses.

I'm not familiar with Common Law, please provide evidence.

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN 100% WRONG BY ANY READING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Again with the caps. I'm obviously not wrong by my reading of the Constitution, and more importantly the Supreme court would almost certainly agree with me, but since I doubt any president will try to declare laws unconstitutional (because they probably agree with my reading too) we'll probably never know for certain.

 

[crimresearch]

"And here we have a JREF lesson in how a poster respondent has found the correct, intended definition of a word, as doesn't even know it. "Blow up the UN bldg." Nukes for all, and "We begin the bombing in 5 minutes" -- Humorless people just haven't got a clue"

Impressive...so every time you are caught fabricating facts, quotes, definitions, and outright lying, you will just fall back on 'I was just testing to see if anyone caught the humor?'

Of course that still leaves the small matter of why people on this board are laughing AT you, instead of with you...

And you still haven't done anything to repair the harm that *you* have caused to your alleged party, by making them indistinguishable form the other looneys like LaRouche.

Nice work, how much is Nader paying you?

 

[shanek]

No thank you. I've said all I have to say to you for the time being.

You've said NOTHING.

[worthless insults deleted]

Varwoche, answer these questions:

• Why is saying that the President has the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws (a power directly given him by the Constitution itself) making the President "all-powerful"?
• How would a President doing so "violate" the law?
• Why is the President required to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititon"?
• What does the Constitution mean by "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
• How would Badnarik's refusal to use the powers of the Presidency to execute unconstitutional laws constitute "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under their Common Law meaning in effect at the time of the Constitution's ratification?
• Why is Badnarik bad and instigating a coverup because his campaign team is revamping his entire site after getting the nomination, but Kerry is apparently okay for covering up and removing a statement on his site where he would make national service MANDATORY for young adults the DAY AFTER the press getting wind of it (thanks to Libertarian Aaron Russo)?

 

[shanek]

I stand corrected, it does seem he has the power to do it.

Spoken like a true gentleman.

 

[shanek]

No executive means that he can execute laws, not that he can repeal them.

He wouldn't be repealing them; he would just be refusing to execute them, in accordance with his oath of office.

Why do you think the President is given the power to grant reprieves and pardons?

It refers to "all cases... arising under this Constitution" seems pretty clear. Especially since the constitution tells that he must faithfully execute all laws.

Don't miss the word "faithfully." He has to execute them under the bounds of his oath of office. If he executes a law with the beleif that the law is unconstitutional, he is not executing it faithfully.

Do you really think using caps magically makes you right? The decision of whether a law is unconstitutional fall under the judicial branch, as you say. "separation of powers".

As I have repeatedly pointed out, all three branches have their own methods of deciding whether something is unconstitutional and their own way of stopping the implementation of unconstitional laws.

Are you saying, for example, that Congress does not have the power to repeal laws that the Supreme Court has found to be constitutional?

It’s basically just a confirmation that he will follow the Constitution.

And how can he do that while he's executing an unconstitutional law?

I'm not familiar with Common Law, please provide evidence.

The Constitution is based on English Common Law. You would do well to familiarize yourself with it if you want to discuss Constitutional Law.

Here's some info for this particular issue:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm

"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."

 

[Thanz]

I would never vote for this guy even if I could. I found the Project Vote Smart website very interesting. Here is a link to the positions of Badnarik, according to their questionnaire:
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MTX77838&PHPSESSID=622d3694598a5f91fa36e48c663f9bc2

Some of the things there seem to be inconsistent with my understanding of Libertarian viewpoints. First of all, he is against free trade (or, at least, all of the free trade agreements listed including NAFTA and the WTO). I thought Libertarians were in favour of free trade.

Second, he suppots this: "k) Support legislation that would protect manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms from civil lawsuits by crime victims."
Why? What about the free market and the independent judicial system? If such lawsuits are frivoulous, they will be struck down as such. Why the corporate welfare? If they can't take it, maybe they shouldn't make guns.

Third, he answers "Yes" to this:"d) Should the U.S. hold foreign states accountable for terrorists who operate in their country?" Huh? How is this in line with the personal responsibility schtick espoused by the Libertarians? So, if a couple of terrorists from Saudi Arabia fly some planes into some tall buildings, we should invade Saudi Arabia? Is Badnarik in favour of this - moving our troops from Iraq to SA?

Finally, I find some of his stuff to just be a bit scary. For example, dismantling the FDA. Also, he wants to "Greatly decrease funding" on "Intelligence operations". Awesome. That will really help prevent terrorist attacks.